Any video games where your vehicles and weapons break during use?

yeah no kiddo, nukes are never going to happen. there's way too much real estate involved

Yes.

Every major country on the planet currently has nuclear warfare as its primary war doctrine.

Nukes are last measures. The amount of political flak anyone would get from using them are too high to take.
Nukes are just deterrent, no one wanna use them.

Jalopy

>>"You don't need rocket launcher to kill a Fly"

Attached: 0008D08A-EA18-4B0B-AED1-49DE339D5C4B.jpg (500x500, 45K)

projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/planetaryattack.php#projectpluto

>The same cold-hearted genius also figured that after a given SLAM had dropped all its H-bombs it could still do damage by leisurely flying a criss-cross pattern over Soviet territory, irradiating the croplands and people with deadly radiation from the totally unshielded reactor (sowing the ground with salt, radioactive-style). This also meant that the SLAM designers didn't have to worry about preventing radioactive fission fragments from escaping out the exhaust, since it would give you bonus enemy fatalities out of each gram of fission fuel. Which means they didn't bother putting any cladding on the nuclear fuel elements, they are in direct contact with the air.

>And if the Soviets managed to shoot down a SLAM, it would auger into the ground at Mach 3, pulverizing the entire reactor and spreading a plume of radioactive fallout rendering the impact region uninhabitable for about the next ten-thousand years. If they fail to shoot it down, it is programmed to crash anyway. Only after it has finished its sterilization criss-cross. The hot reactor elements will mix with the white hot vaporized forward vehicle structure to create a very fine smoke of radioactive uranium oxides. That is, of a fineness to extend the length of the fallout plume. As Scott Lowther puts it: "It'd make Chernobyl look like Three Mile Island."

>I got the same ballpark as Peter. The neutron dose of a fly-over is about 1,700 R (16 Gy and 163 Sv) but the gamma dose is 254,000 R (2,440 Gy and 2,440 Sv). This is a death rocket that kills pretty much everybody within a 3/4 of a mile (1,200 meter) radius of its flight path.

254,000 Roentgen? Not bad, not terrible

>what are RPGs?

and i mean, Classic RPGs and even some action RPGs, not the random game with some RPG elements, though some of those have breaking mechanics too

The point of war isn't extermination, idiot.

Its not if you can repair. Otherwise yes.

India and Pakistan have had 3 wars since they both had nuclear weapons. The nukes were not used.

Boiling Point, old semi-immersive sim FPS RPG made by Russians starring an American in South American jungle. Shitty weapons jam CONSTANTLY.

That would destroy the planet. And not even like they shoot everything, a small nuclear war of even like 20 missiles would send so much radioactive dust into the sky we would enter an ice age almost instantly, that snows down poison for decades.

nukes will most likely never be used again, unless people decide to extinct humankin

if a war is declared, it will be fought with armies and tanks and all the other stuff armies have

only exception is that a nuclear nation fights a non-nuclear nation and decides that continuing fighting with an army is more costly than just nuking them, like USA did with Japan in the 45

Tanks are still useful for low to mid intensity conflicts and maneuver warfare. They fight other tanks, infantry and are used for direct fire against buildings in support of mechanized infantry.

It's not like they're expensive to make, either. Even a fully kitted out American Military-Industrial Complex Abrams only comes out to what, 4-6 million dollars apiece when buying bulk, including weapons and electronic systems? There's more expensive automobiles.

>Thread about weapons breakage turns into nuclear war discussion.
You idiots take it to Yea Forums or /k/

>a small nuclear war of even like 20 missiles would send so much radioactive dust into the sky we would enter an ice age almost instantly

you know we have had thousands of above ground nuclear tests, right?

Heck, in Syria T-55s have been used as basically mobile direct fire artillery to shoot terrorists. It has an engine, a sight and a 100mm gun and is protected against machine guns and snipers.

One modern bomb is worth all of those combined.

deflection by chinks to take heat off OP's pic.

Yes, very smart boy. After all, what is war about if not just killing the opposition, thats why every war has ended after one side is just exterminated.

>if a war is declared, it will be fought with armies and tanks and all the other stuff armies have
You are extremely delusional. No country that is seeing its people die, having its land loss, will roll over and take it. France planned to nuke the Soviets on French soil if they invaded.

No it isn't, most modern nukes are significantly lower yield than old ones.

The amount of wishful thinking from people who think the world is an inherently good place and there's no way nukes could ever be used is pretty hilarious. Leaders don't give a shit about morals or ethics, they have been firebombing civilians and instituting war rapes since the dawn of time. You're getting nuked if your country goes to (actual) war, assuming you're in a city.

*POMF*

What are we going to do on the wasteland, onii-chan?

Attached: groundnuke.webm (488x320, 526K)

nukes arent actually that strong, people say that a few H-bombs would destroy everything just to scare people of using them

the truth is that you would even need maybe 3 or 5 bombs to destroy a modern big city completely

also, bombs have been developed now in a way that they dont release so much radiation, thats why there is now a difference between a nuclear bomb and a dirty bomb

No they aren't, modern strategic and tactical nukes are smaller or configurable yield weapons meant to strike specific targets, mostly in the kiloton ranges, the largest current US nuke is 1.2 megatons.

This is because modern MIRV medium and long range ballistic missiles have significantly higher accuracy and destroying population centers is a deterrence and secondary effect, not the primary goal. You don't need a 50 MT nuke (which has been detonated, and 20-30 MT weapons have been detonated multiple times) anymore.

do you even know how many countries have nuclear weapons?

French nuclear strategy is basically the most ballsy-ass fuckery on the planet, they were going to go nap-of-the-land at mach 1.8 in Mirage IVs to drop freefall nukes on soviet forces while hopefully escaping the blast. Maximum èlan.

underground nuclear detonations are amazing, but no one is ever using that in a war, is just to test the power of the nuke in some way

China needs to just stop trying. Nothing they make is worth anything and pales in comparison to what they are trying to imitate.

Pretty much every country that isn't African has them, or has an ally that has them. Some nations do not announce their nuclear stockpiles (like Switzerland) because they have no reason to do so, having no enemies to fear. Some countries have little to no nuclear stockpile yet claim they have a large one (like Israel) because they have lots of enemies to fear.

So naive. Leaders live off their image. Nuking peolle without just cause is just sealing your political carrer, no matter what kind of system you have. So nukes can be used one day, but only after a very good reason is fabricated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests#Totals_by_country

The US and USSR have detonated over 2000 nuclear devices combined.

There are thousands of "bunker buster" missiles with armored tips and nuclear warheads in service.

Switzerland does not have nukes, user, and even if they did they have literally no delivery systems for them.

>

Attached: 25d.jpg (951x972, 104K)

Retards

tinfoil hat detected

Please tell me how Switzerland would commit to nuclear attacks with no offensive warplanes or ballistic or cruise missiles.

No one said there is no way nukes could be used, just that you’re a retard for assuming that any future major war would be fought with nukes.

You have trucks, don’t you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Swiss_Air_Force

i didnt knew spics could nuclear bomb the world too

>Put nuke in ground
>Invaders invade
>Detonate nuke
>Invading army destroyed and wall of radiation created to help prevent further invasions

Well that was easy.

Racing games for the for car damage flatout, dirt, burnout

Attached: Dpfg0_YV4AAzI6K[1].jpg (1046x1200, 168K)

>F-5s
>Hornets

Okay. Who are they gonna nuke, Italy? That's how far they will go.

>use a nuke
>now you blew up the thing you were fighting over
bravo

>m-muh morals and ethics
No, you retard, the reason nobody uses nukes is because once you launch, you basically have to go balls deep and launch all of them, because everybody on the other side (NATO, Russia, China, India, or Pakistan are the only ones with significant nuclear power despite what this retard says), is going be launching 10 more towards your capital city and every one of your known strategic missile, air, or naval base.

you're a naive child with no idea of how geopolitics works. no one will ever be nuking a country for defending themselves with nukes, unless it is in their interests

>now you blew up the thing you were fighting over
>nuke Palestine with dirty bombs >centuries of problems solved in minutes.

>launch nukes to destroy military targets
>enemy doesn't fucking know what they're aiming at and launches nukes of their own as retaliation
>original launcher launches more nukes as retaliation
>hundreds of nukes with thousands of warheads are now screaming down from above
You know there's something called MAD and Nuclear Deterrence right?

Attached: 1560736318082.jpg (720x463, 33K)

foxhole.

>Palestine
>a problem
are you actually retarded

>make the whole world against you in the process
>centuries of problems created, all pointed at you

>Palestine is the problem
Who would make a post like this?

>Why do countries that fight other countries who don't have nukes bother with tanks?!
I give you a 2/10, best I can do.

That's fucking hardcore, got a source for that? I'd love to read more about their doctrine.

You're a baiting faggot if you think any nuclear capable country is just going to let its enemy just nuke them without similar retaliation.

re-read the reply chain and learn how the website works, redditor

impressive stealth camouflage chink tech. we Ghost In The SHell now.

Attached: 90487175ce16f45be1375e5b1ed6b24b.jpg (500x500, 48K)

Couldn't cars fuck up during a regular race in Flat Out?

There's probably stuff available online and in some books about bombers, but another fun Mirage IV tidbit:

When the French Air Force received new, upgraded nukes each Mirage IV was assigned one, and only one, bomb. They were not expected to return. Fun quote by de Gaulle himself:

"Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French."

Point out what was wrong with my post you ESL mongoloid.

Put your hand on that wall, user.

Attached: clancy-brown-starship-troopers.jpg (707x389, 212K)

>Pretty much every country that isn't African has them
ah yes, the finnish Joukahainen ICBM

>North Korea made hydrogen bombs, but there's no way all the European countries have them!

It must be hard navigating life with a sub-100 IQ

I need wojak

based

Men of war has very decent way of showing and calculating damage realistically on your tanks and vehicules overall, it makes for a very satisfying RTT when you blow up a tank properly.

Breath of the Wild but it was done terribly to a point that otherwise fine game becomes an annoying chore to play.

Nuclear weapons are a huge money sink. Why spend all that when your NATO buddy a couple hundred km's away can just nuke people for you?

>Nuclear weapons are a huge money sink
they are actually shockingly cheap to produce once the R&D is over
similar to CPUs in that regard

Attached: 1560771939288.png (815x758, 418K)

What would happen if you stood next a billion-roentgen radiation source

Would you just instantly die?

china numba one, use our store!!

No, it would take 30 seconds

>Weapons breaking mechanics are fucking shitty and need to be banned.

Attached: 1563302652174.jpg (647x740, 54K)

They could make nukes, but they don’t.

They're only good if the game constantly feeds you new weapons, and improvising is a gameplay mechanic.

spotted the tard

why would the invading army all grp up nicely in one spot?

>Some countries have little to no nuclear stockpile yet claim they have a large one (like Israel)
literally the opposite

I'm not sure if that level of radiation is physically possible. There is a certain "resolution" of how much radiation can fit into a given area of space.

Above a certain dosage of radiation though, it would just instantly stop your breathing, heart, and render you unconscious simultaneously as the radiation fried every nerve in your body

No, JIDF.

What? It's an open secret that Israel is a nuclear-armed country but they have never officially declared them in order to avoid having to submit to international regulations regarding inspection and the like.

youtube.com/watch?v=Wm2WKmTTq9A

Mossad's motto
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

So, why didn't we use them in Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan or Iraq?
We've had them since the 40´s but only used them in combat twice.
They are too destructive and immoral.

None of those were real wars where the country that had the nukes had anything at stake.

t. Yahtzee

>no one is ever using that in a war
Sure they wouldn't

Attached: swtuhSg.gif (371x209, 2.32M)

Half of those were doing Israel's dirty work and the other half was just retarded dick waving

Nothing were really at stake for the Americans during the war in the pacific.
The Americans would have won either way, if not them then Russia would have invade Japan.
They weren't loosing, the Japanese were - so why did they decide to use nukes?

You do know how large nuclear blasts are, right?

Real war will never be fought again because of the world economy.
Nukes have fuck all to do with it.

Because bolshevism was a threat, unlike Japan, and they needed to show the soviets what would happen to them if they threatened the US.

In the past 10,000 years, the world had an economy, and war thrived.
In the past 70 years, the world had nukes, and was

>We have reports of Russians invading Alaska, should we send in the ground forces?
>No need for those old things, just nuke them
>...nuke it, sir?
>Yes, blow it all away
>More reports of invasion forces in New York and Washingt...
>Nuke them
>Reports of Russian sleeper cells being activated across america and fighting in the stre...
>Nuke them and nuke all of Russia whilst you are at it.

Attached: giphy (1).gif (480x199, 700K)

Nuclear blasts come in all sizes.
Do you know how useful they would be in taking out underground networks/bunker?
You wouldn't even have to detonate them that near, the shock wave would destroy everything underground, like a mini earthquake.
Just design a bunker buster type nuke and drop it.
Let it penetrate the earth and shazam

Attached: 2FMdD.gif (480x270, 2.58M)

Tons. They're all shit and completely unrealistic because the mechanics are designed by people who have never fired a gun or owned a car.

not every nation is a nuclear power

Got dirt rally for free at humble bundle, does anyone know of a game like it but without the vehicle destruction?
The game is fun and tight as fuck, but going bankrupt on repairing my car after every race is kind of a mood killer.

t. Brave Axe

fucking based, my fellow patrician

going with that logic the cartels have nukes since they basically run mexico

Oh wait, Americans already thought about building those, the are called "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators"

Attached: 142942615159.jpg (900x877, 124K)

>what are paratroopers
>what are cruise missiles
that shit would probably only work on a chinese zerg rush

With weapon durability, one of the worst mechanics ever created, there's a few options to make it not shit, and each gets worse.
>it's never a problem save for marathon stretches, bosses that attack durability, resting just repairs it automatically (Souls games)
>you just go for the one weapon with no durability loss, and hate yourself if it's not S-tier (barony, DS1 dragon tooth)
>it's super light on weight/resources to fix things and it's made brain-dead easy by mashing one button (oblivion)
Then it gets SHIT
>instantly useless, make a new one (minecraft), or spend effort making anvil, more metal, dump "exp" into it (minecraft is a shitty mess)
>eat one gun to make a new gun (Fallout 3/NV)
>craft a REPAIR KIT (Fallout NV, countless dogshit zombie survival games)
>buy it

>reddit screenshot
neck yourself

I'm surprised no one has mentioned New Vegas yet. They did a good job of both weapon repairs being needed but also various options and thresholds. you didn't need to be a 100% the entire time for best results as an example.

Literally just to fight other tanks, and occasionally for building demolition.

Tanks are completely useless against infantry. Modern regulars are all heavy infantry and often carry anti-tank kit that will immobilize, if not outright kill a hard target way outside of the range of the tank's guns.

Nuke mines were a thing.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Peacock

Either way, the solution to the contrived problem of durability is to A - trivialize it, or B - punish you.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ7rkOHNaik

I was absolutely floored when they cucked the Master Sword and gave it a fucking energy meter. It would have been so much more impactful to find an unbreakable master weapon at the end of the game after dealing with breaking shitty weapons for hours on end. Instead they decide to castrate a sword who's defining characteristic was it's supremacy over other weapons. Fuck the Japs.

>Tanks are completely useless against infantry.
kek. You have no idea what you are talking about. Be humble. Sit down.

Made in China